User talk:LehighValley

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. We hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * Autobiography
 * Neutral point of view
 * Biographies of living persons
 * What Wikipedia is not
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Manual of Style

Al Runte
It's pretty clear you have some vested interest in making Al Runte look good, and will delete any edit containing anything (even in articles not about him) that might not make him look stellar, and replace it with promotional text. Why is that? Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and it has a well-established and strong Neutral point of view policy. How do you feel your contributions and removals are in line with those policies? - Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 19:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I refer you to the news coverage of the march on Woodland Park Zoo. About a dozen different neighborhood groups from across the city participated in that protest. It was by no means only about that garage. - Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 19:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Keith,

I don't know if this will get to you but I hardly find "heresay" either informative or objective. Anyone can sue a newspaper or television station for defamation of character, but how does anyone sue a blog? I found the article about Al Runte defamatory; the reason behind my changes are as simple as that. Note that I did not change the bibliography, any one of which Runte might freely sue. Accountability is the issue here. Just because YOU think something is objective and neutral is not to say that it really is. In matters of reputation, that is settled in a court of law. The original article said nothing about Runte's career, but rather focused on the University of Washington and Runte's lawsuit. The article called his 35% in the mayoral election a "poor showing," when he had but a pittance of Nickels's campaign dollars--and started late. A legitimate article would point out the facts--and leave it to the reader to decide what is "poor." Al Runte is no more stellar than the next guy, but neither is Keith Tyler the King of Objectivity.

As for the parking garage at the Woodland Park Zoo, that is why 80% of the people were marching that day, but yes, the concerts at Gas Works Park were also an issue--and the tree-cutting at Occidental Park. Go ahead--put it in. But don't make Greg Nickels out to be "attacked." Criticism of public officials is a legimate right of every American. Or is that statement unobjective, too?

Very truly yours,

Lehigh Valley


 * I agree, accountability is the issue, which is why Wikipedia has the Verifiability and Reliable sources policy. Do you contest the use of the P-I or Stranger as reliable sources? If you can provide alternate references refuting the material you find derogatory, then by all means provide it. Otherwise, removing relevant content that is backed up by sources just because it makes A.R. look bad is not OK. It's bad enough that the material you added to the "Background" section wasn't cited; while I don't dispute it, without a reference it looks like Original research, which is not allowed.


 * There have been and continute to be plenty of cases where interested parties flaunt the relevant policies (such as WP:AUTO and WP:NPOV) to whitewash or "blackwash" Wikipedia articles. Some of the more high-profile cases even had media coverage. In any case, whitewashing isn't tolerated. - Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 21:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Keith,

Just for the record, I do question that The Stranger is a credible reference. They are narcissists, not reporters. As for the material in Runte's Background section, that is all general information available across the Internet--and in Runte's books, which, by the way, are peer-reviewed and published by distinguished university presses. So, I believe that the information is fully cited. All you need to do is visit your public library.

Which brings up another point in the original article--Runte's alleged "handful" of books. What is a handful? Regardless, all have passed muster in the national and international press. Can you say that of Wikipedia?

Real writers know what whitewashing is: It is putting one's ego before the facts. We can see facts in different ways, but an accomplishment remains an accomplishment. If there is anything untruthful about Runte's accomplishments--from his books to his Ph.D.--point it out. That is all that the Background says.

Meanwhile, nice talking with you again. This certainly has been an interesting week of discovery about the advantages and disadvantages of the Internet.

Sincerely,

(LehighValley 01:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC))


 * Simply saying that material is "in books" or "in your local library" is by no means a citation, which I'm sure you know. As far as I know, Al Runte has written books on national parks and passenger railroads, but not yet an autobiography, so I'm not sure why his professional details would be in them. Regardless, those books should be cited, not simply alluded to.


 * You challenge me to point out anything untruthful about his accomplishments. This is misleading, disingenuous, and ironic. It is misleading because I specifically said I didn't contest the veracity of the details. It is disingenuous because you are attempting to turn the tables on my asking for proper references for the material you added. And it is ironic because you have likewise refused to explain why the material regarding Runte's professorship status, failure to gain tenure, and UW lawsuits, all of which you removed, is incorrect.


 * Furthermore, it is downright comical for you to talk about ego when you have been meanwhile editing Richard Lee to make a point of touting Runte's "soundly defeating" Lee and "advancing to the general election" in an article about someone else.


 * Last but not least, it is completely unacceptable to blatantly vandalize articles, and even more egregious to use a "double edit" to hide it. . So while I'm at it...

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.


 * In any case, there is no need for this to be a two-person matter. - Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 04:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Keith,

I will be adding appropriately to Professor Runte's bibliography and citations as time affords. Meanwhile, all academic books have "about the author sections," and all academic books are peer-reviewed. So far as I can see, you are not Runte's "peer." To the contrary, you struck out the review of his true peer--Dr. Michael Kammen of Cornell University--and in the Washington Post Book World, no less. But yes. The truth can live with "some say," rather than who actually said it. The point is that the Internet is not a perfect source, either. Most journals and newspapers charge for their archives, or do not go back more than 10 years or so. For those citations, yes, a library is the only source.

As for changing the article about Richard Lee, I suspected that he was the one smearing Professor Runte, so yes, I ran a little experiment--which happens to have worked. The article about Lee, too, is far more balanced than it was originally. By the way. The title Professor goes with the occupation, not the person. People of modesty use professor so that people do not feel the need to say Dr. With a Ph.D., Dr. Runte is entitled to be called both, whether inside or outside a university setting. Certainly when university presses or scholarly journals write independent scholars for peer reviews; for book reviews; for academic evaluations; or to speak on campus; they address those scholars both ways. Otherwise, there is nothing untruthful about Runte's denial of tenure, but in that case, do include Runte's allegations about the UW, just as you include Mr. Lee's allegations about Kurt Cobain. And do include that the courts agreed with Runte. They just happened to think he was too late.

Sincerely,

(LehighValley 16:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC))